tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 12, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EDT
oil production from the new america foundation. live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern. up next on "washington journal," we will talk with democratic congresswoman rosa delauro about food stamps and republican michael burgess will discuss the vote host: good morning. it is thursday, july 12, 2012. leaders are discussing when and f a tax cut extension plan will be discussed. we will talk about that later today with connecticut congresswoman rosa delauro.
today, we are asking your thoughts about the health care vote in the house. this is the first time the house has tried to repeal the bill known as obamacare. do you think it is worth the effort. when you think congress should go from here? you can also catch up with us on all of your favorite social media sites on twitter, fiscal -- facebook andy can you tell us at journal.cspan.org. some reaction already coming in
on facebook on the health care repeal. one person writes it is a typical gop tactic. another person wrote, they did the right thing. he doesn't call. we want to hear your thoughts on the subject. we will be talking about it for the first 35 minutes. first, we want to talk about mitt romney who addressed the national association for the advancement of colored people. we will discuss governor romney's speech. colorado was governor romney received by the crowds ha? -- how was governor romney received by the crowd?
. caller: - - guest: he made some statements he knew would not be received well in the room. he said he would be appealed in federal health-care law. -- repeal the federal health- care law. the booing was only a few seconds in a 22 minute speech. host: how has the romney campaign is on the? guest: i spoke with one of his senior advisers. she says, i will take three
boos and half a dozen applause lines. they are for raising this as an introduction of mitt romney to be black community. -- the black community. many will be using the speech to say mitt romney is not right for black voters. you can see why. host: it is written that a mitt romney speech to the naacp will have zero impact. this seems to be an appeal to independent of can her -- independent white voters. to show but he is not a zealous tea partiers.
do you agree? guest: i think president obama will probably get more than 90% of the black vote. there is a high rate of black unemployment. speech spokeey's to folks outside the room. i heard from people inside the room. they said, i encourage be dying for showing up. -- guy for showing up. host: how has been -- the obama camp responded to the speech? guest: been campaign has made the assertion that mitt romney would be the throat -- and worst president for black voters.
he would increase the access that black americans have to health care. there were statements countering mitt romney's speech. even before he a ride on stage. host: you have any idea of what vice president biden is expected to say today? guest: i expect that you will not want to miss it. host: thanks for joining us this morning and filling us in on that event yesterday. we have you for about 40 minutes on "washington journal." we will be discussing be repeal - the repeal of the health care
vote. this is a headline. the house voted on wednesday to repeal all of present obamas's health care law, acting with the supreme court declined to. it was designed to lay the groundwork for voters to have the final say in november's elections. a lingering opposition to the law in home districts. five democrats joined the gop in favor of repeal. this marks the 33rd time the house has tried a full or partial repeal. it has become the defining domestic achievement of mr. obama's achievement. the senate has blocked every one
of the previous repeal efforts with only a few weeks -- tweaks to the financing. of the five democrats that broke party ranks, two are conservative who are not considering reelection. the others are facing tough reelection battle. matheson had opposed a repeal, but switched his position. we want to get your thoughts on this repeal voted this morning we will go to phil on the
republican line. how are you? are you there? we will go to the democratic line. john is from texas. john, go ahead. caller: i think these votes are a waste of time. these republicans have done a pretty good job of bringing every negative aspect of this bill to the public. as far as the farm bill and the food stamp program, it will never get past the senate and will never be signed into law by the presence of the united states. you are wasting your time on this nonsense until after the election. they will not be in town for the rest of the year anyway. host: windchills do you think they should be working on him -- which bills do think they should
be working on? caller: i think we should get out of afghanistan. host: this was from cbs news yesterday. a tally fund that a republican repeal effort has taken up his 80 hours or two fuld weeks since 2010. -- taken up 80 out worse horn at two fuld weeks -- hours or two full weeks on the floor of the house. we have another caller. caller: the votes are not a waste of time. it highlights the disparities between the 8 parties on health care. what we democrats -- the guilty
parties on health care. what the democrats should do is to offer a bill to every single person and the united states to buy into any plan of building a federal employee within the geographical hotelkeeper with a design -- geographical localities where they resign. that would bring health care to millions of people who cannot avoid here. with regard to the commerce clause argument, the reality is hot john roberts was hoisted on the petard of the gonzalez versus race case. they justify invading a woman's
basement and the basis of the commerce clause. he could not logically think out a way to use the commerce clause to invalidate be accountable here at. he found a sneaky methods of doing it within the wide parameters of the tax law. host: i want to bring you some comments from the speaker of the house. john been talking about the vote yesterday. >> we were told this bill will create jobs. we were told it would create 400,000 jobs. guess what? it did not happen. his bill is making our economy worse, driving up the cost of health care, and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. he american people or told they
would come to light his hill once it was passed. -- edward holds they would come to light this bill once it was passed. -- like this bill once it was passed. there are 21 tax increases in this health care law. at least a dozen of them hit the middle class. host: on c-span's facebook case, we have a question. do you support or oppose the repeal of the 2010 health care law? 1002 people say they support the repeal and 1012 people saying they oppose that repeal. you can go on facebook to participate in that poll and the conversation going on right now. a few tweets coming in.
credit for jobs numbers should fall on congress's shoulders. they ran in 2010 on jobs. i want to point to a column from kathleen sebelius. she wrote an editorial in the washington post. he supreme court decision upholding the affordable care act was a turning point in the health-care debate. it is a chance to move forward with implementing and improving a law that is already lowering health-care costs and providing more security for millions of american families. full column in the washington post. chun is on the republican line from sarasota -- john is on the republican line from sarasota,
florida. caller: i am for repeal in its 100%. -- it 100%. hitting back to mr. romney, i believe there are black members of the naacp who were -- and will vote for mr. gandhi because under president obama, -- mr. romney because under present obama in the famine years he has been here -- he got -- in the four years he has been here, he is losing ground. host: on this health care law. you are talking about replacing it. the republicans have been
criticized for not having a lot in place to read his place been -- replace the health-care law. caller: it would be thrown into the wastebasket in the senate. it is just a waste of time. i am sorry they went through it. maybe they felt they should do it. host: derrick is on the democratic line from rome, joined the. what are your thoughts on the vote yesterday? caller: this has no chance of passing. the republicans were against medicaid, medicare, and social security. they are against anything that will help the majority of the american people. they are and the thinking on the
health care. why i paid for their health care. can you a mansion, these people for whom we are paying their hot-can you imagine, these people for whom we are paying care -- they are trying to the polls everything -- oppose everything obama tries to do. mr. romney was born into wealth. host: thanks for the call. we will keep it to the healthcare vote for the next half hour or so. i want to bring you some comments from steny hoyer, the assistance of the minority
party in the house from maryland talking about this voted been a waste of time. >> he republican repeal bill would take away these benefits and and these cost-saving measures. after 31 votes, no alternative, no plan to follow, no security to offer. repeal in health care without an alternative would add over $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. i do not say that. the congressional budget office says that. he comes in place of a voted to create jobs. there is nothing scheduled for next week or recapture. it is a waste of time. host: that is minority whip
steny hoyer. a few e-mails we have received. why do republicans insist on being a big horse when there is so much good that could be accomplished? they need to start doing what they were elected to do, which is improved the lives of the american people. they need to start being honest in their tactics. russell is waiting on the independent line. your thoughts on the vote yesterday and where should they go from here in? caller: post -- both political parties are marinated by the insurance industry. this bill was written by an insurance industry lobbyists. i agree that this hill should be repealed. the insurance -- bill should be
wiped out and replaced with a single payer. most of the western world understands. they have gone to a single payer system and gotten rid of the insurance system. that is how you control costs. single payer is the only way to control costs and cover everyone and save lives. host: thank you for the call this morning. a response from here on twitter. that old gentleman lester bank -- the final vote was 244 -- back final -- that final vote
yesterday was 244 in favor. one of those not voting was congressman jesse jackson, jr.. he is under treatment for a mood disorder. under increasing pressure from top democrats, in the congressman's office issued a statement saying he is being treated for a mood disorder at can her in patients center. his camp tried to camp of rumors that he was being treated for alcohol or drug abuse. there are no specific answers for what he is being treated for, where he is being treated,
and when he will get out. in the washington post yesterday, they talked about a little bit of the reaction to that in congressman jesse jackson, jr.'s long absence. steny hoyer told reporters that jackson and his family would be well advised to tell constituents about his medical condition and lengthy absence. dick durbin said wednesday that the congressman has a responsibility as a public official to tell us what the situation is. house minority leader pelosi told reporters at the time line for disclosing more about his condition should be dictated by his medical needs. disclosures about jesse jackson, jr. today. here is the front page from the tribune today. there is a picture of jesse
jackson, jr. let's go back to the telephones. phil, where should congress go from here to repeal the health care law? caller: i believe yesterday's vote was a way of wasting the people's time. the republicans know him well that the senate is not a majority republican situation. i think it is a waste of time. i believe the republicans can do more by talking about ways jobs can be created and how the economy can be improved. that is what needs to be done instead of wasting their precious time talking about how to repeal the affordable care law.
host: do they have time to do it or is it a waste of time until the elections? caller: after the presidential elections here. -- the president elections. instead of finding alternatives, i did not hear anything from them. it seems to me this waste precious time in dealing with this issue instead of talking about issues that are more important. everybody believes the economy is an issue. that is where i believe he'd focus should have been instead of talking about ways they can repeal the -- it.
there is no way in peeling it can help the economy or help people get employment when- -- repealing it can help the economy. host: a tweet. i want to point out another story. the lead editorial in usa today this morning about another aspect of this health care policy fights. obamacare putting politics above citizens is the lead editorial.
he writes that the single best thing we can do is to increase reforms to develop competition. back to the phones this morning. dean is on the democratic line from missouri. good morning, dean. caller: republicans in the house and mitch mcconnell in the senate, they need to drive their eyes and blow their nose and get on with some of these -- dry their eyes and blow their nose in get on with some of these jobs bills. they keep calling this obamacare. this is the law. louie gohmert should not be in congress. he is a hypocrite and has
committed borderline treason. host: what did you disagree with him on? caller: he wants to be whole thing be peeled and practically called president obama a traitor -- repealed and practically called president obama a traitor. also, congressman allen west out of florida. that man is dangerous. host: bob is on the republican line. good morning. caller: the way i look at it is, like any major bill, you bring in so many republicans and democrats. if one side runs ram shot, we end up with what we got.
-- ramshod, end up with what we got. i think the people lost out. the democrats could have at least pulled in five or 8 republicans. that is all i have to say. host: we will be talking about this issue later in the show with congressman michael burgess, a republican on this issue. from the campaign trail, a few headlines for you. there is chatter farther down the line to the rest of around the's cabinet. romney is -- the rest of romney 's cabinet.
the story goes on to note if you of those folks who are being shafted -- chatted about. senator joe lieberman, who is leading the senate and president george w. bush's last national security adviser. a few of the folks being talked about for secretary of state positions in a potential romney cabinet if he does win.
usa today found their information by reviewing the federal election commission reports and insights -- invites to fund-raising events. still talking about his health care voting yesterday in the house. port washington, maryland. randy is on the independent lines this morning. where should congress go from here? caller: i think this vote yesterday is ridiculous. it is a waste of time. where once it is to be hot
senate, we know it is going to be killed. -- to the senate, it is going to get killed. we know the republicans want to repeal it and the democrats want to keep it. they need to learn something that i have been able to teach my three year-old, which is to learn compromise. he cannot have everything his way. host: how will this health care vote and be back and forth influence how you voted for president in november -- the back and forth influence how you attend -- vote for president in november? caller: at the supreme court has said it is constitutional. -- the supreme court has said it
is constitutional. the congress has spent 1/4 of their time doing their job and 3/4 of their time raising money for their buddies. that is why you see some of these democrats who voted to repeal wednesday voted for its the first time. they are facing tough challenges in their district. they do it because they earned worried about saving their jobs. host: thanks for the call this morning. i want to point to a comment on facebook this morning. talking about health care done correctly.
medicare. we are not all college graduates. host: with a repeal it, are you concerned that there is not a concrete plan in place to replace it with? caller: absolutely. both sides do not know what to do with it. somebody needs to fix it. i am been affected. host: any parts of it been helpful to new? caller: the preconditions. i come from families that have diseases. they should have had that for many years. they should put it on the ballots on election day and let us speak. they keep saying they are up there doing this 40 people. i believe that are having their little -- and doing this for the
richard is waiting on the republican line. where should congress go from here after the 33rd attempt to repeal this bill? caller: i think it is unfair to call in and senate republicans are wasting their time or wasting the people's time. remember, president obama and the democrats spent almost 2 1/2 or three years on this law. they passed this law when they were in the democratic majority. it was unfortunate that speaker pelosi made a statement saying she is not to ban sure as to all
living things in the law -- too sure about the things in law. the bureaucracy is one to increase to maintain this law. --going to increase . treatment will be impossible or delayed for at least two years. i believe the republicans are doing the right thing. it is always easy to say things that people will be happy to receive. if you say, we will provide this for you, people will be happy if it is free and it will be less costly. but how are you going to provide
this and where are the finances? it is only going to get worse. host: tony writes in that -- we have four or five minutes left in this segment. i want to point out a few international headlines. vietnam war's legacy is vivid. secretary of state hillary rodham clinton made a brief stop on her agent for -- asia tour. another headline from the washington post on the international front. mexico's war on crime falls short, according to a report.
caller: all of these bills are submitted to the congressional budget office. thus, the speaker of the house say, here are the parameters -- does the speaker of the house say, here are the parameters? is that true or not? host: do you not trust the congressional budget office? just worried about politics? they are known on capitol hill has been arbitrary or being a neutral referee in some of these decisions. caller: when they analyze a bill, do they have to analyze it under conditions established by the speaker of the house. they cannot go outside of those parameters.
host: i am not a cbo expert. what is your concern moving forward? to do not trust being -- the cbo reports? caller: i am and independent on medicare. i am not too worried. it seems to me a lot of their estimates were incredible -- incredibly low. they did not understand everything that would be built into the bill. they said it would save $500 billion. the real cost over 10 years will be $500 billion to the -- $500 billion. i am wondering if it is always accurate. do they have to follow the guidelines given to them by the
speaker of the house? host: thanks for the call in this morning. that will be our last call for this first 45 minutes. up next, congresswoman delauro joins us for a discussion on the proposed cuts to the food stamp program. later, we will talk with congressman michael burgess, a republican of texas. we will talk about the republican plans for health care. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> shreveport in march. oklahoma city, may. we taught in june. this past weekend in jefferson
city. what would be continuing troubles of c-span's local content vehicle. look for the history and literary culture of our next stop, louisville kentucky. >> throughout july on c-span radio, historic supreme court oral argument focusing on election issues. >> they referred to us as being independent, professionally run, that the candidate who knows who is helping him and why. these are code words for saying we are effective. because we are effective, our speech should be choked off. >> on c-span radio and nationwide on xm radio and
online at cspanradio.org. >> hitler realized these armies were not come into his aid, but were trying to escape to the west. that is when he collapsed. --acks historian his main objective was not to be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage. he was determined to die. eva braun was the hermans to die with him. -- determinded to die with him. >> washington journal continues.
host: the house agricultural committee sent a eighth bill that includes $16 billion in cuts to the food stamp program -- a bill that includes $16 billion in cuts to be a food stamp program. what does that mean to the program guest: -- what does that mean to that program tim lahood -- that program? guest: people who never thought they were point to have to feed themselves or their families through the food stamp program. check with any of my colleagues throughout the united states and
every single congressional district he is seizing the rise of hunger in the united states. that me he knew a statistic from my state of connecticut. 1 out of 7 is what they call food insecure. this is a euphemism for people not knowing what their next meal -- where their next meal is coming from. when you cut $16 billion from the food stamp program, what are you talking about? here are 3 million, mostly youngsters. he of the 46 million people on food stamps, 21 million are children. host: this is the supplemental assistance program. what are some of the programs included that some of the folks watching may now? guest: it is the food stamp
program. it is also the nutrition programs that have to do with school lunch, school breakfast programs, the emergency food assistance program, which is how our food banks, our food pantries access supplies. people come in to take the opportunity to get food to put on their tables. if you have such a drastic cut, you will see 16 million people who are no longer be able to access the food step program. you will see children, and in the end congress, who will not be able to get food. -- infants and toddlers, who will not be able to get food.
the federal government picks up 60% of the cost of the premiums for crop insurance. i told you about 46 million people who access who stamps every day. we have 4% of heat beneficiaries of the crop insurance program get 1/3 of the premium subsidies. 26 million get at least $1 million in subsidies. that is 26 and versus 46 million people. it is less than $5 a day or the food stamp program. host: we will show our fewer banks -- viewers some of the statistics of the s.n.a.p. program.
it has increased by 70% since 2007. spending rose to $72 billion in 2011. talk about that increase and the reasons for that increase. does it have to do with the rough economy? guest: it mostly has to do with the rough economy. what is so particularly important about the food stamp program and the way it was designed to is that, when there are difficult times, the numbers rise, the number of people who are using the program, that number rises. when the economy gets better, when we focus on putting people back to work, we see the numbers drop. we are beginning to see a slight decrease in the numbers. it is about getting our economy back on track, making sure
people are going back to work. people today, many of them who are using food stamps, never thought they would have to use a new stamp program. people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are struggling every single day and week to make ends meet and put food on the table for their families. host: this is from bloomberg government. food stamp rolls are expanding even as the unemployment rate decreases. this is showing a decrease in unemployment from 2009 to 2011. folks are concerned that it is too easy for people to get access to food stamps. guest: let's talk about the unemployment numbers. many people who say unemployment
is 8.2%. that the sun include the people who have stopped looking for jobs. -- that does not include the people who have stopped looking for jobs. people who have been unemployed for one year or two here's who are unable to find jobs. -- two years who are unable to find jobs. let me give you an example. a woman has three children, three boys, 18, 14, and 10 years old. she lives in connecticut in a middle-class, blue-collar community. she lost her job. this was a woman who was involved in purchasing, pension his benefits. she lost her job through no fault of her own.
ineligible for include stamp program. she dug up to a microphone and spoke about her three boys -- she got up to a microphone and spoke about her three boys. her family eats one meal a day. she cannot afford to put food on the table. she uses the food that contains content of the emergency food assistance program, which would be cut if we cut the food stamp program. these are real stories of people who are trying to feed their families in the united states. at the same time, we are providing 26 beneficiaries of a crop insurance program with at least $1 million. there is the threshold, no cap on the amount of money a beneficiary of crop insurance can get. there is a path -- it is around
30 -- a cap of around $30,000 for a family of four. host: i want to play you a clip talking about the reasons for the cuts to this program. [video clip] >> we close loopholes and eliminate abuse. some are not enough while others say they earned too much. -- they are too much. this will not prevent people who qualify for assistance under s.n.a.p. law from receiving their benefits.
families most in need can continue to recede assistance. host: do you think there is any fraud, waste, or abuse in this program that needs to be addressed? guest: what has to take a look to make sure there is no fraud, no waste, and no abuse. congressmen lucas did not mention this. the error rate is around 3.8%. it is probably one of the low was error rates in a federal program. for people not paying their taxes, we are looking at 16% of error rate. people are not paying their fair taxes in the united states. everywhere there is fraud and abuse, we should take a look at
it. that is not what we are doing here. we are going to cut off benefits to up to 3 million people, 300,000 children are no longer going to be able to get a school lunch program. that is taking food out of the mouse -- mouths of children. they are children, they are seniors, they are disabled. we are looking at the families of returning veterans who are having to access the program. if you want to take a look at fraud and abuse, let's take a look at this crop insurance program. i am surprised that chairman lucas did not address the fact that we have 26 individual beneficiaries that receipt at least a million dollars in a premium subsidy. i support crop insurance.
i have farmers in my district. it should be equitable nationwide and it should be equitable in terms of the crops it covers. host: we are taking your calls this morninglet us go to cape c. with rick on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you made a statement concerning the advisability of purchasing a soft drinks with food stamps and that is maybe the only way that recipients can fill the bellies of their children. is that the message that you want to give to the country? it is ok to step sugar -- caller: you make a good point. the fox channel did not deal with the entire question. let me take a second to address this. anybody who knows me knows that
i believe that that is not the case. one of the interesting facts is when you go into the grocery store and you are looking at purchasing what would be a healthy drink, it winds up being $3.49. on the other hand, you look at a liter bottles of sugary drinks in the it is 79 cents. 80 cents. you are a consumer. you go in and you are going to look for something that you can afford. and that will fill up your own family or children. that is not the right thing to do. we ought to take a look across the board at -- may strong
supporter of nutrition. let us look at the ways in which we can bring down the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables. the fresh fruit juice that i spoke about. let us take a look at maybe what we should do -- maybe we should put a few more since on the purchase of sodas. what kind of crops are being subsidized when you look at this? i was not saying that because i am a strong believer that we should address the issue because the sugary drinks are hurting our children. they are hurting our families. the cost is in health care in the issue of obesity. host: twitter -- host: up democrat on the house and committee -- agriculture committee agreed to these cuts. correct? guest: he has.
i disagree with my friend, congressman peter said. we work closely together. i was fortunate enough to beat on the committee in the farm bill where we make changes in food stamps, thereby allowing more people who were eligible to be able to access the program. we disagree on the nature of the cuts. host: do you disagree with the democratically controlled senate cuts? guest: $4.5 billion in the senate. those cuts, yes, because beneficiaries are being cut from the program. the bulk of the farm program is about a farm safety net. 80% or more of the program. where we are cutting direct payments, which is what the senate bill did, we are helping to mitigate against that for
farmers through a crop insurance program. through another program that deals with if the prices of crops grow up and how we can make farmers profitable. when we have a difficult time, we have to address economic needs. the only group of people who will see a benefit cut are going to be those who are at the most vulnerable -- seniors and children who will see benefit cups. -- cuts. that is in the senate bill. that is why i am opposed to that. host: informational out who gets food stamps. -- some information about who gets food stamps.
guest: it is about $134. in any case, we are talking about people who are making $30,000 or less. you are capped at 130% of the poverty level. >> good morning -- host: good morning, gregory. caller: am so proud of you standing up to this man is that is going on. all of this embarrassment. we need you democrats to stand toe to toe with this menace. what they're putting out there. i am glad for the food stamp program. keep fighting for people who really need to eat. we can find money to start wars, we can police the world, but when it comes to taking care of our own people, the
conservative people have lost their minds. thank god for you guys. keep their real. keep doing what you are doing. god got to back. i love all my democrat people. host: jim wright's in -- -- write in -- guest: i think we ought to take a look at the subsidies better in the program that have been approved. is it right that 26 beneficiaries of the crop insurance program are paid $1 million per year? there is no cap on income for those individuals. 4% of the beneficiaries are people who are getting one third
of the subsidies. let us take a look at what i said. the federal government is paying roughly 60% of the premiums. you are a beneficiary of that crop insurance program. you take out a policy. the federal government pays roughly 60% of the cost of that premium. in addition to all of these administrative expenses. and 26 people get at least $1 million. we are talking about $144 per month. $1.50 per day per meal. less than $5 a day. for the food stamp program for 46 million people. that is one way to pay for it. let us take a look of the subsidies we provide to the oil and gas industries. we think they are struggling? are the ceo's having difficulties putting food on the table? i do not think so. we give them $4 billion per
year. what about those that take the multinational corporations -- what about the multinational corporations that create jobs overseas? that is $8 billion in subsidies. what about the extension of the tax cut to the richest 2% of the people? we could save some money there. we could pay for some of these other things. do you know what we could do? we could help reduce the deficit. host: gary on twitter -- host: i want to talk about who is eligible for this program. we will show some information for the viewers about eligibility requirements. there are certain requirements to get into the food stamp program. there is also this idea of
categorical exclusions. people are concerned is too easy for people to get into that. guest: these are mainly driven by the states. if you qualify for the needy assistance program, it has some of the same eligibility requirements. if you qualify for that program, which is income-based, then you would qualify for a food stamp program, which has similar eligibility requirements. host: that requirement is a gross monthly income at or below 130% of the poverty line. guest: we are talking about well below $30,000 for a family of
four. it could be below that. there are similarities. quite frankly, what the states decided to do and what congress decided to do was to say rather than going through all of these of paperministrative pieces work that one might need to do to verify, we can verify for your eligibility for this program that you were eligible again for food stamps. as you check with states, they would tell you that that is something that has worked to their benefit and they crossed cross over very closely matched. congress moved in this direction in number of years ago. host: many of these exclusions need to be arraigned in? -- do any of these exclusions me
to be reined in? guest: you are eligible for these subsidies from one program, you are eligible everywhere else. i think is very, very interesting that we do not place any limitation on upper- income people in terms of what they can access in terms of subsidy. again, i will go back to the farm bill. there is no subsidy that is prevented because of a cap on income. because of a cap on income crop insurance. you can be a mega farmer and yet, you are eligible for at least $1 million for a
subsidy. why aren't we challenging those subsidy levels? does it strike you as inequitable? let us create some balance. i want to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in all programs. let us not go to the poorest and most vulnerable in the very biggest economic downturn we have seen since the depression. host: on twitter -- host: i want to go back to the phones. georgia. denice is on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. basically, this is an overall solution. i live in america. i have american indian in me.
as well as irish. i would just like to say that with all due respect, the american farmer will be put out of business because of the different laws and what not. they keep cutting back. the insurance is necessary because of the crop is destroyed, insurance only pays out if their crop is destroyed by some act of god -- host: what you think about the cuts to food stamps? caller: it does have to be cut because there are people abusing the system. they always have. ok? he needs to be looked into. -- it needs to be looked into. people who are actually signing these folks up for food stamps me to take a closer look at who they are talking to. host: will give you a chance to respond. guest: thank you for the call. one need to really look at fraud
and abuse in every program. the error rate in the food stamp program is about 3.8%. one of the lowest in the nation. you get to the tax side with the irs and people paying their fair share of taxes, you are the key get an error rate of about 16%. let me suggest this to you. i think that we can be equitable. i represent farmers. i think that when people have a difficult situation and i am supportive of disaster relief, but i'm supportive of people being able to access food. quite frankly, farmers or for the food stamp program. people are buying their products. this was a program that was designed in order to help those who are in need of food and quite frankly, people who are on
food stamps are there for 10 months. it is a bridge. we have worked closely with farmers. they produce the food that get sold in grocery stores that people who have food stamps purchase. this relationship should be close. we ought to look at the federal programs addressing people who need access to food and those that are getting assistance and other areas. we need to make sure there is equity. at the moment, there is not any in the program. the farm bill cannot this morning and we are seeing that inequity written large. the bulk of the cuts is coming from the food stamp program. it ought to be equitable, the farm insurance bill. host: as we go to the next
caller, here is a map of the u.s. that shows the percentage of the population receiving food stamps. the dark red is the highest. the light numbers being below its. d.c. having the highest rate. -- being the lowest. d.c. having the highest rate. independent from raleigh, north carolina. you are on with rosa delauro. caller: a lot of people are talking about food stamps, farmers, so forth. time a business owner. -- i am a business owner. my biggest concern is the food stamps that they give to the children. i know and every american knows that most illegal immigrants are sending money home to take care of their families. what about the americans who need those jobs? why don't they use their
programs to make people take a physical and go to work. guest: i think you address a big problem we have in the u.s. that is jobs. we're looking at employment rates of 8.2%. that is no longer counting those who left stopped looking for jobs. we have the ability to look at how we can create jobs. we have seen the biggest loss in jobs at the state level. that is coming with police, fire, school teachers. enormous loss of jobs. 1.1 million jobs in this area. we need to focus on -- i am very concerned about this issue and have initiated a number of bills in order to try to create jobs.
we need to look at how to try to fix our schools. quickly put people to work in doing that. how are we -- we ought to be investing in infrastructure. building roads, bridges. the environmental infrastructure. putting people to work. jobs that cannot be outsourced. quite frankly, this congress and the president has had a jobs bill on the table for a while. the majority in the house will not take up the bill. that is our biggest effort. that is what we need to do. people have a job and they have a weight and then they can take care of their families. they can pay their mortgages. they can set themselves on a strong economic path. host: last call. sue from new york. go ahead. you are on with the congresswoman.
caller: good morning. i wanted to address how easy it is to get food stamps. here in new york, it is not. we have to provide a document for every part of our life. we have to provide -- my husband is disabled. i have worked every day of my life. i am 64. i lost my job two years ago. we had to provide copies of our mortgage, our taxes, our county tax, our accountant, our school tax, our water bills, and documentation on what kind of car we own. we have to go to our neighbor's and have them sign a paper that only two people live in this house. we get $62 a month. we live on under $15,000 per year. host: in the last 30 seconds, if you want to respond. guest: you have said more in bed
and then i could ever say in terms of what the nature -- in that minute then i could ever say. at the same time, there are people getting subsidies from the federal government of at least $1 million. they do not have to get verification. they just get it. why? why are we putting people who are trying at their wit's end to put food on the table -- wire we tried to subject them to this kind of -- it is inhumane and tomorrow. those are not the values of the u.s. host: thank you . come back again soon. up next, we are joined by congressman michael burgess of texas to doubt about his reaction to yesterday's's
healthcare repeal vote. >> part may. -- pardon me. here are the headlines on c-span radio. mitt romney's campaign pushing back against the obama campaign commercials depicting the former massachusetts governor as someone who ship jobs overseas. on the "today" show, there adviser says this charge by the obama campaign is "a live." there is no evidence mr. romney outsource jobs as head of bank capital. the obama administration today pressed beijing to accept a quota of conduct for resolving territorial disputes -- a code of conduct for resolving territorial disputes. it has faced resistance from the communist government. hillary clinton met with china's foreign minister at the
association of southeast asian nations' annual conference. the foreclosure twisting firm says that in june, the number of homes and during the four -- entering the foreclosure market dropped, driving down home value. finally, for the first time, saudi arabia is sending women to the olympic games. officials say the saudis are sending two women to london to the peak in judo and track and field. the conservative moslem kingdom has been under fire for only sending all male teams. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on "book tv" we look at the effects on the
environment and the people here saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and sunday on "afterwards" we look at the life of jean kirkpatrick. >> she saw the dominoes start to fall. by 1979, she was in opposition to carter and what she saw as carterism. particularly crucial in this respect in 1979, she saw the fall of somoza. a couple of experiences that were lacerating. >> the political woman behind the reagan cold war doctrine. we also look at "hospitals,
hotels, and jails." this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressmen michael burgess of texas joins us now, a day after the house voted for the 33rd time to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. congressman, do you expect a different result this time? he said the senate probably will not pick this up. guest: it is important to get out there with the information your people watched the supreme court decision a couple of weeks ago. realistically, the affordable care act is so flawed. this is the rough draft of the senate that actually got signed into law in 2010. it was full of drafting errors and new taxes. clearly, people need to be thinking about this. you will hear from the court of public opinion in november.
avenue continues to be a difficulty, as well. i will tell you the truth. i was ready to go with a bill covering people with pre- existing conditions. the supreme court knocked out the affordable care act. i will still be introducing that. i am having to change some things now that the supreme court did not do exactly as i thought it would do. i'm having to change some things. i will be introducing that before the end of this month. i hope that can form the basis for some discussion as we get into the fall campaign. look, we were told when the president and speaker pelosi were selling us on the affordable care act that their work 12 million people who suffered pre-existing conditions. the actual number of people covered under the pre-existing condition insurance program is 62,000. that is not quite the same number. that demonstrates that in a large group market, this was not a problem.
this drops off as important in the large group market. it is a problem in a small group market. we can fix that. there is a finite number of individuals who need help. states have reinsurance programs. certainly, the bill builds on those programs and encourages the states and helps the states with that. why do we need to spend the overhead dollars on a new federal agency if we could just spend the overhead dollars on helping states with their existing programs -- we would help more people. >> -- host: the criticism democrats had about this vote is that there is nothing on the table right now to replace it with. i want to show you a comment yesterday on the house floor from al green, a democrat of texas. [video clip] >> my constituents insisted that i read this bill before voting on it.
my constituents want me to read this bill. this is a replacement bill. they want to be sure i understand the replacement bill before a vote to repeal. i want to read the replacement bill. i shall read the replacement bill. let me just read half of it first. i shall now read one half of the replacement bill. now, i shall read the other half of the replacement bill. host: did republicans make a mistake by not having a replacement bill in place before these votes? guest: this is the difficulty that i ran into.
existing law is this so anything i introduce, people say forget it, you have covered that under the president to attack bill or law. the problem is, it does not cover the people. it costs too much money. i cannot improve it because this thing is standing in the way. i will help rip green because he is a good friend. we share a lot of the same ideas. there is no route shortage of republican place. we are bursting at the seams with republican plans. people say they did not do anything -- where did the children's health insurance come from? my first year in congress when the medicare modernization act that allowed our program to come into existence -- was that not a republican congress who signed that bill? there has been no certification -- no shortage of republican ideas. the problem is that people did
not like to report things. host: if you want to call in and talk to congressman burgess, give us a call on the give us a call -- from naperville, at illinois. michael on the independent line. you are on but congressman burr this. caller: back in november of 2011, our "chicago tribune" had an expos today on who makes up the 1%, the top wage earners. and there are about 3 million people approximately in that category. about 650,000, 20%, our doctors. and they also said if you take the other doctors do in not the
specialists, they kind of fall into this second%. so, the top 2% of wage earners in the whole country are the dr. class. i hear you guys talk about all this nonsense, every excuse under the sun to avoid dealing with the factors the medical community makes money way out of proportion with the rest of us. my wages have been going down over my working career. i actually peak in 1987, when i had my best year in terms of adjusted real dollars and abiding cover. host: congressman, you are a doctor. a chance to respond. guest: my income line probably
peaked earlier than his and began a transition downward and perhaps even more sharply. why do we do this? one of the things the president did when he was arguing the affordable care act -- why the law by the very people you need to help you? thank you vilify the people you need to help you? access to a health care plan does not need access to health care. one thing the affordable care act is double the amount of people on medicaid and yet the reimbursement rates are so poor that you do not see visit -- physicians is in patients on medicaid. about 30% in my state will seek a new medicaid patients. what happens when you expand medicaid? those patients will show up in the emergency room. what problems have been fixed? you need doctors to be your allies and partners and one of the things i have never understood is why the administration chose to the lot -- vilify physicians as part of their run-up to the passage of this law?
host: do you agree with governor rick perry's position to opt out? guest: i think he is very wise to be very circumspect and cautious. the landscape of the road ahead in health care, especially the federal partner in health care, is very uneven and a very rocky road and the thing the governor is wise to be circumspect. host: we have a chart with a number of uninsured in the u.s.. in 2010 -- texas topping the list. an editorial in "usa today" this morning criticizing rick perry for doing this setting he could bring down this number if he accepted the provisions. guest: one of the success story is our robust safety net program and safety net hospitals that actually care for individuals who otherwise would not have care, and yet what will happen as part of the president's plan and the affordable care act, which secretary sebelius is doing is
those dollars would be robbed from the safety net hospitals and used for other purposes and as a consequence, the uninsured in texas will actually have less access to care for chronically under the affordable care act. the other big problem we have in texas, 1200-mile border with our southern neighbor and we have problems the people in the state without the benefit of a social security number. the president before a joint session of congress in 2009 says no one except people who are legal citizens or immigrants would be recipients of the new affordable care act. but in fact, if we don't do something about the individuals who are in the country without the benefit of a social security number, you have not changed anything. the safety net hospitals will continue to be inundated by people without the benefit of citizenship. aghost: waynesboro,
pennsylvania. you are on the congressman burgess. caller: republicans keep saying we have a plan but yet there are any details given to that plan or what the proposal would be. host: let me ask -- guest: let me ask you a question. we have the affordable care act, 2700 pages of dense instructions to the federal agencies about what to do with us in our lives. wouldn't it have been a better approach -- we acknowledge there are problems in the health care system that's in 2008 and in 2009 -- wouldn't it be the better approach to take the five, seven, nine, 12 things that needed to be fixed and have focused legislation to deal with the problems rather than this, which actually tells you how you live your life and may tell you when you have lived enough life? why do we have to have this type of interference from the federal government? the things that needed to be fixed, some of them could be done by administrative action in an afternoon and did not require
2700 pages of dense federal instructions. what i would say is most of the people who reject the notion of the affordable care act do not want to see a republican 2700- page bill to replace the democrats's 2700 page product. fix what is broken. did not damage what is working for other people. the one thing people ask us over and over again -- and you help with costs, because that is what frightens other people. host: betty from fort worth waiting to talk to you on the democratic line. caller: thank you very much. i was listening to the representative and, yes, i understand that the republicans did pass the schedule d. again, it was done very late at night with date code version of the hammer, so to speak. -- the coercion of the hammer, so to speak. it was not paid for and we also
had two wars not pay for. you say there are only 62,000 with pre-existing conditions? guest: the federal pre-existing condition program by the middle of june, what i was given by the federal agency. caller: then why do most insurance companies account pregnancy as pre-existing condition and will not cover second or third babies if there are a problem? guest: actually, i do not know if it is entirely the case. i spent my life practicing obstetrics and gynecology in texas. the pre-existing condition phenomenon is a problem in the individual and a small group market. people covered under employer sponsored and large group, those tend to not to be the types of problems and individual who goes out to buy the individual market. but why don't we provide the protection for the individual
and small group market which is already provided for the large, employer sponsored market? that question has played the long before i ran for congress. if there was one thing i could fix, that is what i would try to do is try to make those two markets more similar. the issue of someone who than once to buy insurance the last trimester -- trimester of pregnancy, you can understand the insurance company saying this is a concept of shared risk of spread out over time and we cannot concentrated all and the last weeks of gestation -- gestation and expect to be in business the next weeks. the bigger problem is people need to recognize as they start their families, they are going to need health insurance. let's help them be able to have access to the types of policies that will be able to work. let's encourage the insurance companies to actually create problems -- product people want. when i was in private practice, i've provided insurance to my
inquiries. host: what was your practice? >> ob/fgyn practice and texas. but every year i look for the best deals in insurance companies. my employees' insurance might change if i could find something that was a little bit better. but what a better world it would be if you have a longitudinal relationship with your insurance company where your insurance company can see value in keeping you healthy, making sure you have periodic screening. every car guy will tell you you will lengthen the life of your car if you do the periodic scheduled maintenance. the same is true for us. unfortunately we have a system now where, yes, you do try to use -- move from year to year to squeeze a few dollars off of that particular called on the balance sheet but i long for the day and insurance company would work with me and my business and help people find longitudinal coverage for employees. host: you talk about what you would replace it with.
boringfileclerk writes -- guest: you would have to ask governor romney. host: any discussions with him about it? guest: no, if you recall, i actually supported a different candidate in the primaries. host: not privy to the inner campaign workings. guest: yes, we are working on that. host: kentucky. frank on the democratic line. caller: thanks for c-span. guest: good morning. caller: i just had a couple of comments. i am glad you called affordable health care act instead obama -- instead of obamacare. i've just wonder if any republicans get sick -- because i am disabled coal miner -- and my third question is about social security and medicare. thank you.
guest: if i drew social security and medicare? the answer is, no, i and not of age to draw social security and medicare. obviously as a member of congress, i do pay into the social security system and i pay the payroll tax to medicare. i pay into the systems but i currently do not draw from those. it brings up an interesting point being a disabled coal miner, and i worked with some representatives from virginia and west virginia and our problems in the affordable care act for some of the programs that affect people like him, and we are trying to work on removing some of those rough edges. but honestly, the affordable care act did not the vote -- deliver as promised. look at how it was written? they went down to the white house with special -- special interest groups, he said they will be open around a conference table -- and you will know it because it will all be on c- span.
correct? but it was not. when it came time to write the bill they called the special interest in and a close the door and one of the bill -- and wrote the bill. host: republican line, take half. you are on with congressman burgess. caller:hi, congressman burgess. i have a couple of comments and questions. my first comment is after romney was at the naacp yesterday, he made the comment saying obamacare and the next statement was about the chamber of commerce, something like three- quarters of the businesses would say that they will quit hiring. you know, that was an online survey and even the u.s. chamber of commerce says it is not really a scientifically done survey.
i kinda wish that you all would stop using that. my question is -- guest: it warms my heart to hear you say y'all. go ahead. caller: both of us got sick eating food in florida, a disease in the middle intestines, and it affected his immune system to where he ended up getting another disease from a shower head, a risky activity. now he has an infectious disease. we are self employed. our insurance and the 2000-2001 period, way before mr. obama came to office and we had to drop the and now we are insuranceless, and now rick perry is not alone us to buy into a group and my husband has
a pre-existing condition i am kind of leaning toward voting to someone who will satisfy my problem. guest: you are actually fortunate because texas has a risk pool for people with pre- existing conditions. no, it is not free. they charge for the premium and it is probably a little bit higher than the premium on the open market because of the fact that it is a risk pool. but texas actually have done a pretty good job setting it up. this was always my complaint about the affordable care act. why do you develop a new federal program when there are already in existence state programs that are working well for people? the biggest problem texas has with the risk pool is the amount of dollars the state is able to put into that is limited. well, if you put federal dollars -- not supplanted but augmented the state dollars, yes, maybe in the private sector and insurance companies in texas, asked to but
is a bit, but that is a more powerful way to produce the arrangement and likely would provide much more in the way of health for someone like you and your husband and unfortunately this large federal program that has been set up which is actually helping only a few people. what was the cost? $5 billion. we could have provided a lot of help to the states with that. host: north carolina. crystal is on the independent line for congressman burgess. caller: i would just like to know why is it we are giving away free health care to iraqis but not for american citizens? guest: as you know, the united states ended its activity in iraq in december, so if it was happening, it is not happen now. so, again, i did not have direct knowledge it was actually occurring but at the same time, it has been concluded. host: thomas is on the
democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is about medicare. i am a senior citizen and i am retired and drawling medicare. currently $96.50 a month is taken from the social security check. one of the gentlemen callers to c-span said his premium was going for $96.50 -- from $96.50 to $247 a month. yuko the first i heard of it -- i believe he is referring to the part b premium, which is optional but most people do take that. an adjustment is likely to occur in the first month of october to start the new fiscal year. i really cannot comment on that much of an increase because it is the first i heard of it, but i will certainly look into it.
host: i want to talk about the larger economic picture. from the associated press this morning -- the number of people seeking unemployment benefits plunged last week to the lowest in four years, a hopeful sign for the job market. but the decline was partly due to temporary factors. your thoughts on the trends in the numbers? guest: the trends have not been good through the numbers released by the bureau of labor statistics and the like -- last week. it is encouraging news, i pray it will continue. the one thing that will bring the country out of recession is
to put people back to work. the old saying goes -- we don't need new taxes but new tax payers. you and i both know that a single data point does not define a trend line but i pray it establishes. host: what about republicans jerry for a bad report? guest: absolutely false. we all want the country to be better. one thing that really strikes me is that it does not have to be like this. we could do a lot better. host: kentucky. ellen is on the republican line. you are on with congressman burgess. caller: what really upsets me -- guest: good morning, ellen. caller: people do not seem -- you fold the paper and have, you fold it in half again --
terrible little 30-second piece and a look at the big piece and there is -- there are about 30 people and line with you to get an x-ray because they did not increase all the benefits to get the x-ray. host: what is your question for the congressman this morning? the way it was sold to us, how many people would be in your availability -- that would be your ticket. if you have a piece of paper and make it into 32 squares and now you have your health care but you have 31 other people there that are going for it. guest: competing for the same
sector of health care you are going to consume. that is a valid point. nothing done to affect the supply of physicians, the availability of health care, and that was the point that i was making earlier. by reducing the number of uninsured by just presidential fiat of the extent -- of expanding medicaid, there is no place for the medicaid patients to go today -- today. where will the additional 15 million go? host: steve from baltimore writes in -- guest: there always have been options. the online group ehealthinsurance.com has always offered a high deductible policy and age groups that is affordable. the difficulty is working the minimum wage jobs without benefits. if we improve the job market,
the job possibilities and job choices for an employee he like that, that ultimately will be a solution to their problems. not setting up another government program where he is at the whim and the back and call of this congress or future congresses to decide -- they say the affordable care act have gone from just under children dollars in a 10-year window, and you move the window to today, federal projected cost by the finance committee is to $0.60 trillion. at the end of the year we will have a financial cliff we will roll over and will be a financial that discussion without the good feelings of 2011. there will be financial problems in the future. the road ahead is rocking. you cannot necessarily count on the benefit you have been given by the government today still being there tomorrow, because what is going to happen with these recisions? we all hear about defense but
what about the apartment of health and human services, the plans for the 7% or 8% reduction in discretionary spending levels january 1? this is not speculation. this is law signed by the president in august of 2011. this is going to happen. what would happen to those benefits that a person has been counting on it suddenly everything is reduced 7% to 8% at department of health and human services? the benefits will be at risk. people need to wake up and look across the horizon because they're big troubles coming. host: the number of times the house has voted to repeal part or all of the health care bill, the 33rd time yesterday. ron from colorado writes in -- guest: two points. of course, there have been put
reform pieces of legislation that passed the house going back to my first year in congress in 2003. never could get the senate take it up even with the republican majority and a doctor as of the senate majority leader. realistically reform is in the purview of the states. texas has done a good job copying some of the compensation reform act. we have caps on non-economic damages. a little different from california. advocate cap of $750,000 but it is working. counties that the not have a er doctor years ago now has one because the climate has improved. it does need to be tackled by the state. unfortunately there are states that will not take it up. there may be another way to look at this. since medicare is a federal program, is there a way perhaps to provide liability relief within the medicare program itself that obviously already exists in all 50 states, and you
would not have to threaten state sovereignty in order to do that. but medical liability is a huge issue. you are right -- it is one of the missing links from the affordable care act. where was of the of reliability -- liability relief, the fix in medicare that has been flaunted so long does we have to come in and fix every december? what about allowing doctors it to talk together about costs? you cannot ask doctors to be participants in this brave new world and hold costs down if they cannot get together and talk about price. the minute you do that the guys from the federal trade commission will ruin your day, cosby $100,000 to beat back the charges. you will be able to do that but it will mess up your life for a long period of time. why didn't we improve that environment when all of this was the one? host: about five minutes, talking to congressman michael burgess. he practiced medicine about 30 years in north texas -- guest: 25. host: ob/gyne/lgin, illinois --
ob/gyn. elgin. illinois. caller: doctor congressman -- two things i wanted to say. people who are pregnant cannot get individual insurance. i am an insurance agent. not only expectant mothers but expectant fathers cannot get insurance. talking about 62,000 people covered under the pre-existing condition insurance -- guest: supplemental program. caller: that is taxable by congress because there is a cap in the amount of money. states would expand the program if congress put more money into it. guest: that is exactly the point
-- and thank you for making it for me. why spend more money on setting up a federal program which is a new program under the affordable care act, why not help the states that already have the risk pools or reinsurance programs are the ways to deal with the problem? the $5 billion spent setting up the new program could have been vastly better used by helping the states who are already helping their citizens with existing risk pools and a reinsurance. host: let's go to frank from oklahoma city this morning on the democratic line. good morning. you are on but the congressman. >> good morning. thank you very much for taking my call. appreciate it. i just wanted to ask the congressman -- i am a retired federal employee, and i worked for the post office for about 27 years. they paid about 70% of my premiums. i am just wondering if that is one of the reasons why the postal service was having so
much financial problems. like the congress lady said before, i think that might be a good place to find some money, if they would pay their full share. thank you for taking my call. you have a blessed day, gentleman. guest: the question is a valid one. but honestly, if there had been problems -- continuing the health benefits, you can't just stop because people are going to be hurt by that. the caller would be hurt by that. yes, there have to be things happening in the united states postal system because the money is just not inexhaustible. but at the same time i did not know if it is exactly the fix most would be looking to. host: one more call from mary on the republican line. you are on the congressman burgess. caller: good morning, congressman. i am a health care
professionals. there are great areas of concern in this bill to me. one of which i don't think has been discussed very much, probably because of lot of it has not been ironed out yet, and that is the independent patient advisory board. i would like to know if anybody knows yet when we are going to be able to see who is on it, are we going to be able to know why they are on that, where they come from? are they going to be medical people? i heard there were going to be ethicists and people from academia. i would like to be able to see that process and read about the folks who are going to be deciding. guest: section of the affordable care at -- shall include individuals with national recognition for expertise and help finance, economics, actuarial, health facilities, health plans, innovative
delivery system, reimbursement of health facilities and at the very last, hourly empathic an osteopathic physicians. they cannot put a lot of credence on actual health care people on it. we want people from think tanks, certified smart people and economists but not really so interested in somebody working in the trenches and somebody working on trying to deliver care to people. one of the big fallacies. when will you know who those 15 people are? they are appointed by the present. likely not to be appointed until after election day. you can use your own judgment why that would happen. secretary sebelius has come to our committee and we asked for specifically for a list of the people being considered and the answer is, no. they don't want to tell you until after november 7 because after rock, it may affect how you vote. host: something you are continuing to push her on or are you just assuming it is not
going to happen? guest: the board needs to be set up. and all of these people will have to be confirmed by the senate and we all know how difficult it has been with various holds they can place. the majority of the board the board can be appointed by recess appointments and they can meet and render their associations. host: thank you for joining us on "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable shelley moore capito to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our
chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the members of this people's house deliberate these days, give them the wisdom and mag nimity to lay aside what may divide us as a people, to forge a secure future for our country. we pray for all people who have special needs. may your presence be known to those who are sick that they might feel the power of your human spirit. be with those who suffer persecution in so many places in our world, and bless our troops who are engaged in the easing of those sufferings. give to all who are afraid or anxious or whose minds are clouded by uncertain futures, the peace and confidence that come from trust in your goodness and mercy. inspire the men and women who
serve in this house to be their bestselves, that they may in turn be an inspiration to the nation and to the world. may all that is done here this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren. mr. hultgren: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> madam speaker, i request
permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i express to -- i rise today to express concerns on behalf of my constituents. paralysis, uncertainty, these are the effects of inaction, inaction on looming massive defense cuts that will go in effect in 2013. in america's first district, many small businesses exist to support our military, to innovate and to build systems and resources, resources for our troops that save lives and help them do their job on the battlefield. mr. wittman: these businesses face uncertain future, sequestration remain unresolved. do they stop production? do they lay off workers? this spring i voted with the majority in this house to avoid these massive defense cuts while putting the nation's budget on a path to balance.
the senate has failed to act. the president has threatened to veto. our military and those who support it and the national security of this country demand our attention and respect. leaving this issue to the last minute is irresponsible. now is the time for action. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. two weeks from tomorrow olympic athletes from all over this world will parade in the stadium in london to launch the 2012 olympics. ms. hochul: i am proud to say five will be western new yorkers. archer from alma, the current number one ranked pole-vaulter, jen from churchville. one from rochester and two-time
soccer female athlete of the year, amy from rochester. throughout their lifetime, training, hard work and sacrifices, these athletes embody what it means to be an american and they carry to them the pride of western new york and the entire nation. as we wish them and the entire team good luck, the common theme is those that will join us as we seek to form a more perfect union. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota rise? mr. berg: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berg: thank you, madam speaker. last night the house ag committee finished its work on the farm bill late last night, and i applaud chairman lucas and the ranking member peterson for their work. i rise today to call for full consideration of the farm bill
before the house. agriculture is the backbone of north dakota. and north dakota farmers and ranchers deserve the stability and certainty that a long-term re-authorized farm bill would provide. when the farm bill passing through committee with bipartisan support, including strong crop insurance, now is the time for the full house to act on it. i urge my colleagues to join with me and work together to get this bipartisan farm bill passed. thank you and with that i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. a beloved wife of our dear colleague of 18 years, amo holton, passed away last friday. she was a playwright, a linguist, a poet who together with amo formed a special type of power couple.
patricia was intelligent, curious, gracious. she was the perfect partner for amo. while her efforts 40 years ago led her to introduce children and adolescence to joy and creativity here in d.c. with amo she fight against mean-spiritedness here in the nation's capital. cycling was significant to her because with an early bout with polio that left her bedridden for a year. patricia -- priscilla was a very special person and she never slowed down. our thoughts go out to amo and their family. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: madam speaker,
today i rise to honor marsha, an illinois native and recipient of the 2012 national fire protection association fire and life safety educator of the year award. marsha serves as the fire department's public information officer and in that role she coordinates with emergency serviceperson ell to provide downers grove residents with valuable life-saving information and safety related materials. she's also assistant to the chief and a juvenile fire interventionist. and to help others promote safety within their own communities, she published a 400-page reference book, five and life safety educator, the most easily accessible reference book of its kind. madam speaker, marsha's more than 20 years of excellent public service have demonstrated her commitment to keeping our community safe, and i want to commend marsha for her leadership, her dedication and her hard work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, yesterday new york state attorney general eric snyderman was in western new york to celebrate the passage of new york state's istop law. it connects crrs and pharmacists helping to combat the tragic prescription drug abuse epidemic. mr. higgins: i was pleased to join the effort by leading a bipartisan state delegation letter in support of this law. while there are many important players in the passage of this bill, i would like to especially congratulate senator tim kennedy, avi and julie israel for their efforts. the passage of istop raises awareness of the growing importance of integrating health information technology and electronic medical records into the field of health care. i hope other states will move to implement this and other electronic medical record technologies. this is a serious problem, and
it is our responsibility to act swiftly. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: madam speaker, now that the health care law is out of the judiciary process, it's back in the hands of the legislators. it's time to face the real consequences of this law. this week the ways and means has started examining the tax affects, the oversight committee is looking at the impacts on patients and doctors and on the economy, but in reality we know what to expect. the average american family will see a $1,200 increase in health care premiums after this law is fully in effect. more than one million americans are at risk of losing their plan because their plan was denied a waiver. the congressional budget office has estimated that we will see 800,000 fewer jobs by 2012. the law contains 22 new tax increases and nine in 10 seniors with retiree benefits
will lose their prescription drug coverage through their employers. it's time to get specific with the american people about what this law means for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: president obama signed into law a bipartisan compromise which lowered the student interest rate to 3.%. the ink was barely dry when the romney campaign would put us back to the student loan lenders. this is what the cato institute said about that proposal. a meaningless change from the college affordability standpoint. banks would be happy to go back to that. it was a great gig for them. a romney supporter said romney is just ridiculous. his campaign staff doesn't have any new ideas so they just said, let's impback to what we were doing before the obama administration. for young americans, the choice
this fall is becoming clear. we have a president who successfully challenged this congress to protect the lower student loan interest rate and his opponent which is looking to take $60 billion in taxpayer funds and give it away to special interests. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, when i am back in southeast texas, i hear from individuals and businesses who are concerned about how obamacare will affect them. ava, a senior in houston, tells me this. i am a senior who's very concerned that i will lose the great health care that i am presently receiving under medicare. i am pleased with my doctors and with my health care plan. at the present i can afford it and i am concerned i will not be able in the future if obamacare goes completely through. and i also might not get the care i need for the health issues i currently have.
seniors cannot afford obamacare nor do they want it. living on limited income today is hard enough for me with this new health care plan now wanting more of my money. seniors seem to be taking it on the chin tremendously on this issue. madam speaker, ava's right, obamacare's not good for seniors on medicare. they will pay more for less care because of this expensive government takeover of america's health. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: one of the most significant congressional accomplishments in 1965 was to create a program whereby american citizens could have the opportunity for nutritious foods. the snap program allows 46 million americans to avoid being hungry. the benefits go to deserving individuals, 15% of elderly, 20% are disabled. the average income is $731. the average net income is $336.
now we see an effort to roll back these benefits to these volatile population. the ryan house budget calls for $35 billion in cuts. the lucas-peterson plan marked up last night calls for $16 billion that will result in three million americans losing basic nutrition. madam speaker, this proposal will hurt real people, literally take food off of their table. it's wrong, it's immoral, it's irresponsible to take food away from deserving american citizens to balance a budget that is unbalanced because of reckless policies that have benefited the rich. i urge my colleagues to develop a balanced approach to deficit reduction to include cuts, new revenue but food should be out of the conversation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 4402. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 726 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4402. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, to preside over the committee of the whole. . the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4402, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to require the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to
united states economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time of the the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: madam chair, the united states of america is rarely last at anything. unfortunately that is not the case when it comes to permitting mining projects. in 2012, the u.s. was ranked dead last along with papua, new guinea, on the pace of mining permitting. i can't speak for new guinea, but the reason the u.s. is so slow is simple, government bureaucracy. burdensome red tape, duplicate reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects for more than a decade. these unnecessary delays cost
americans jobs as we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for raw ingredients to fuel manufacturing and our economy. the lack of american-produced strategic and critical minerals are prime examples of how america has regulated itself into 100% dependence on at least 19 unique elements. rare earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical minerals, are often used as core components for the manufacturing of everything from national security systems to consumer electronics, to medical equipment torques renewable energy components, and everyday household items. even though america has a plentiful supply of rare earth elements, our negative approach to producing these crucial materials has resulted in china producing 97% of the world's rare earth elements. just like the united states' dependence on foreign oil causes pain at the pump, americans will
soon feel the impact of china's monopoly on the rare earth element market that impacts will be felt -- those impacts will be felt when they need a cat-scan or want to buy a new computer for their small business or purchase an iphone or install solar panels on their roof. h.r. 4402, the national strategic and critical minerals production act, introduced by our colleague from nevada, mr. amodei, will help end this foreign dependence by streamlining government red tape that blocks american strategic and critical mineral production. first and foremost this is a jobs bill. and the positive economic impact of this bill's intent will extend beyond the mining industry. for every metals mining job created, an estimated 2.2 additional jobs are generated. and for every nonmetal mining jobs created, another 1.6 jobs are created. this legislation gives the
opportunity for american manufacturers for small business, technology companies, and construction firms to use american resources to help make the products that are essential for our everyday lives and in the process this will put americans back to work. as china continues to tighten global supplies of rare earth elements, we should respond with an american mineral mining renaissance that will bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to the united states. the national strategic and critical minerals production act will help supply our national security, high tech, health care, agriculture, construction, communications, and energy industries with homemade american materials. this bill is the latest example of the house republican's -- republicans' commitment and focus on job creation. the house has passed over 30 job creation bills that still sit in the senate. where their leaders, unfortunately, refuse to take any action.
this includes several bills from the national resources -- natural resources committee to increase production of our all-of-the-above energy resources and to protect our public access to public lands. h.r. 4402 will enable new american mineral production. we must act now to cut the government red tape that is stopping mineral production that furthers our dependence on foreign minerals. i urge my colleagues to vote yes for this underlying legislation. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: it is really quite fitting that the republican-controlled house of representatives is taking up a bill today to weaken environmental regulations for the hard rock mining industry
because just last night the president held a lavish $25,000 a plate fundraising dinner out in montana. and for those who don't know, the daily mansion where the event was held was owned by a famous guy, marcus daily, who was one of the three hopper kings of montana. he was infamous for his epic battles with other robber barons for control over the copper industry in montana and around the country. in fact, the supreme court's recent 5-4 decision to invalidate the montana election law of 1912 known as the corrupt practices act, overturned a law that was originally enacted to
respond to the very excesses of mining barons like marcus daaly -- daily -- daley. here we are out here on the house floor embracing the guilded age, but here in the republican house, we are not in a gilded age, we are in a give away age where -- guilded age, we are in a give yahweh -- giveaway age. and the bill we are considering today is so broadly drafted where apparently sand and gravel and crushed stone are considered rare and strategic that the majority actually appears to be trying to usher in a new stone age. under this bill, the next time you go to the beach you should put some sand in your pocket because the majority apparently believes that it is a rare element.
that gravel in your driveway? protected because under this bill it is apparently strategic to america's national security. rare earth elements are indispensable to a wide range of military, electronic, and industrial applications, as well as a variety of clean energy technologies. but this bill isn't giving us just a futuristic technology of the jetsons, it's gives us the prehistoric technologies of the flint stones. volumes of reports have been written about rare earth minerals and other critical and strategic minerals and none of them define things like gravel or sand and clay as critical or strategic minerals. what we could be doing, what we should be doing, on this house floor, is developing a policy to break china's grip on the rare earth minerals that are important to our high technology
sector and to national defense. but we aren't doing that with this bill. no, what we are doing here is using strategic and critical minerals, as a pretext for gutting environmental protections relating to virtually all mining operations. now, because this is a g.o.p. give away game show here on the house floor, in fact when the majority has cast so many votes to benefit these industries it gets hard to keep track so we have created this chart to help everyone keep track of which industry is benefiting each week in the g.o.p. giveaway game show. yesterday my colleague from utah seemed extremely interested in making sure this chart functioned properly in order to aid the party. so i brought it back today so we can give it a spin and make sure we all remember who is getting a
special giveaway today. but for the republican congress this isn't the game show wheel of fortune, this is the wheel of fortune 500 companies where we can spin to see which large multinational companies will get handouts. until "jeopardy" you state your answer in the form of a question. in the g.o.p. house of giveaways, answers are stated in the form of questionable policies, and the g.o.p.'s final answer in their running game of "who wants to be a millionaire" is always the same, it is the largest corporations in america at the expense of american taxpayers and the environment. in fact, the majority is bringing this bill chalkful of giveaways -- chock-full of giveaways to the mining industrial without addressing the 140-year-old loophole that allows mining companies to extract gold and silver, uranium, and other hard rock
minerals from public lands without paying taxpayers any royalty payments. this rip-off is even worse when you see that western state actually charges royalties of between 2% and 12% for companies to mine hard rock minerals on state lands. but on federal lands which might be right next door, the mining companies don't have to pay taxpayers a dime in royalties. the robber barons are long gone, but mining companies can still operate under a law put in place during their heydey. yet the majority's answer is not only to do nothing to end this free mining on public lands, they are trying to hand even more giveaways to this industry in this bill. this is a bad bill. and it should be defeated. i reserve the balance of my
time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, the chairman of the energy and minerals subcommittee on the committee on natural resources. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman. madam chairman, i'm pleased to speak in support of h.r. 4402, the national strategic and critical minerals production act of 2012, introduced by my colleague, representative amodei, which i am a co-spopsor. this bill was heard in our committee on april 26. although americans hear a lot about dependence on foreign oil, they may not know about our dependence on foreign countries for mincals critical to national defense, communication, and medical care needs. over the years we have allowed frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary regulations to stifle our domestic production of these vital minerals. today the united states is
nearly 100% reliant on countries like china for rare earth elements that are essential to our economy. we should all be troubled by china's recent policies restricting exports of these critical minerals, but rather than complain about that to the world trade organization as the obama administration is doing, we should simply support our efforts to allow production of and access to our own vast domestic supplies. this bill is a bipartisan plan that cuts red tape by streamlining the permitting process for mineral development and will create jobs and help grow the economy. under current laws and regulations, it could take a developer up to 10 years to all the government permits in place. this bill would shorten that time to just over two years. these minerals are an essential component of technologies in everyday items ranging from cell phones, computers, medical equipment, renewable considering products, high tech military
equipment, and building supplies. they are vital to our country's manufacturing sector and our ability to create jobs. every job in metals mining creates an estimated 2.3 additional jobs. it's time for america to get serious about rare earth and strategic minerals. we can start by opening up our $6 trillion worth of untapped mineral resources. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i thank my friend, the ranking member. madam chair, today we are considering the so-called national strategic critical minerals production act of 2012. now, despite the bill's title, it has almost nothing to do with national strategic critical minerals production. in fact, under the guise of
promoting the development of minerals critical to the united states' national security, this legislation would reshape mining decisions on public lands for almost all minerals. you heard mr. markey talk about gravel and sand and other things that can fall under the definition here of critical minerals. to list of problems with this bill that is long and several of the amendments we'll consider today will attempt to address the egregious provision that is would truncate important environmental review. make no mistake, this is a giveaway. it is free mining, no royalties, no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty payments, near exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption from legal enforcement of the protections. . and it's unnecessary.
madam speaker, the natural resources committee have already reported out legislation on a bipartisan basis to lay the groundwork for developing critical and strategic mineral production. nearly a year ago, july of 2011, yes, 12 months ago the committee reported out h.r. 2011 on a bipartisan basis, the national strategic and critical minerals policy act of 2011 by unanimous consent. that bill would improve our understanding of critical strategic mineral deposits and aid in their development. that legislation is not only bipartisan, it's supported by the national mining association, for heaven's sake. the president and c.e.o. of the national mining association, hal quinn, issued a statement when the bill passed out of committee saying, the house natural resources committee took bipartisan action today to ensure u.s. manufacturers,
technology innovators and our military have a more stable supply of minerals vital to the products they produce and use, end quote. he went on to say that legislation, quote, will provide a valuable assessment of our current and future mineral demands and our ability to meet more of our needs through domestic minerals production, end quote. yes, a year ago we reported out a bill on a bipartisan basis that would do what this legislation purports to do. and instead we're taking up this legislation which is a giveaway. the legislation we could be dealing with actually deals with strategic and critical minerals, and if the majority were to bring it to the floor i'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming bipartisan way. and would likely be passed by the other body and signed into
law. we should be able to work in this fashion when it comes to improving our supply of rare earths and other strategic minerals and ensuring we are not dependent on china and other nations for their supply, but the majority's not interested evidently in working in a bipartisan fashion. instead they're moving this bill, h.r. 4402, which has almost nothing to do with strategic minerals and it's really about giveaways to the mining industry. the bill the trojan horse has no chance of becoming law. why are we playing these games? why are, i should say, they playing these games with the need to develop strategic minerals? we should be working in the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill. the majority should shell this giveaway to the mining industry and bring up the other critical
minerals policy act to the floor immediately. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from nevada, mr. amodei. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. amodei: thank you, madam chair. i'm going to follow on the theme from my colleague of the garden state. why? why does an 11 1/2-page bill two things? it sets a time limit on federal permitting decisions for mines and says if you don't like that decision you are going to sue in 60 days. what's the problem with 2 1/2 years to talk about the permit? what's the problem with providing some predictability to the timing of the permitting process? what's the problem with not stringing people out underneath but for over a decade for mine
decisions? why are we not hearing about that? the giveaway stuff is phenomenally entertaining. this does nothing to tax law. this does nothing to safety law. this does nothing to sue plant nepa and it -- supplant nepa. it says you got 30 months. and by the way, if you both agree, you can use more than 30 months. what's the translation of that? god forbid we have collaboration between an applicant and a federal land use agency in this process. why are you afraid of collaboration? why are you afraid of setting a time limit, and where in the 1969 nepa law, since we're talking about old stuff, does it say this is a marathon and if you can outwait them, forget about the facts, forget about the science, forget about the to be nothing, we are going to delay and hope that you will go away? because you know what, hats off.
when 1% of the surface land in this nation is impacted by mining, i think what it's really about is we don't want any predictability for this because we are basically against an industry. and you know, everybody has a definition of strategic. when you talk about transportation, medical devices, national defense, the economy, i think those are strategic and critical things. so i would urge your support on this, to bring some collaboration truly instead of making this an administrative marathon for purposes of permitting. thank you, madam chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield three thins to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. the bill we are considering today is not ensuring our supply of, quote, strategic and critical minerals. this bill is about deregulating the mining industry and theline
-- the pipeline industry. it's misnamed and it should be renamed the koch brothers mining and deregulatory act of 2012. it's consistent with everything that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been about during this 112th congress. it's been about deregulation. it's been about tax breaks for the wealthy, and it's been about cutting the ability of government to do what it needs to do while they're cutting the ability of the federal agencies to assess the propriety of these kinds of activities, mining and gas line production, while they're cutting the ability to do that, they are reducing the time within which the remaining assets of the
various agencies have to do the work that they are supposed to do. and i tell you, it's important that we assess the environmental impact of various proposals on our environment. but my colleagues on the other side don't care about the environment. almost a year ago the natural resources committee produced h.r. 2011, the national strategic and critical minerals policy act, a bipartisan bill that actually did address supply vulnerabilities for truly strategic and critical minerals policy. i was proud to work with ranking member markey and chairman hastings to co-author that legislation, and it was passed unanimously by their committee. that bill, h.r. 2011, would have passed this bill with broad bipartisan support and
would probably pass the senate too. it could have been a rare glimpse of actual government -- governance in this totally politicized tea party house of representatives. unfortunately, i understand that bill was obstructed by republican leadership. i wonder why. could it be the koch brothers? things go better with koch. could it be the mining industry instructed them to attack enroenl instructions? rather than bringing the bipartisan h.r. 2011, here we are -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: 30 seconds. mr. markey: i yield 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you. rather than bringing the bipartisan h.r. 2011, here we
have a wolf in sheep's clothing, a bill that is supposed to help our national security interests but protects the health and well-being of americans throughout this great country. it's just another episode in a long saga of misleadingly named republican legislation, bills that claim to help the country but really just help the special interests. what a shame. i yield back. mr. hastings: madam chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds before i yield. i would yield to the gentleman from georgia if he can tell me in this 11-page bill where, where environmental laws are gutted. i yield to the gentleman. if he can tell me what page? mr. hastings: i'm asking you a question. mr. johnson: you ask me a question. mr. hastings: what page?
mr. johnson: the overall scheme of this bill is -- mr. hastings: what page? i ask you -- i am yielding him to -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: you are not interested. mr. hastings: reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: the gentleman has his own time. i am very pleased to the gentleman will yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, a member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 4402. my home state of arizona is known for the five c's, cattle, cotton, citrus, climate and lastly copper. people have been digging in arizona for precious metals like copper for centuries. nearly one in four people in arizona were miners. without a doubt mining --
mining is not what it's used to be. minerals such as copper, lime, ash are mined throughout my district. these minerals employ constituents, jobs that pay over $50,000 to $60,000 per year plus benefits. in rural arizona those jobs are few and far between. in fact, they are few and far between across this country. but there is some potential and there's so much more. as you can see from the graphic, rare earths and other critical minerals have been discovered throughout rural arizona and are suitable for development. these minerals our country badly needs for everyday items like computers, cell phones, batteries and cars. so what's the holdup? as i travel throughout rural arizona talking with companies that do business throughout my state, the message is clear. the length and complexity, the uncertainty of the permitting process is stymiing development. if you do not believe this, how about a real-life example? i will give you an example
right out of rural arizona. down here in the southeastern part of my district is a home of the newest mine in north america. it took 13 years for all thes in permitting. imagine that. time is money. i was the first co-sponsor of h.r. 4402 because the government has to work more efficiently. this legislation streams the process and sets benchmarks while ensuring continued environmental protection. let me be clear. despite what the opposition says, this bill does not exempt the industry for complying with environmental regulation. it tackles the problems on the government approval process. it -- let's restore some sanity into the permitting process and get -- mr. hastings: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: i do not believe arizona could exist as it would today. copper would not be one of our five founding c's. please, let's restore some sanity to the permitting
process and get american miners back to work. vote yes on the stregstreg. our country and economy depends on it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman. i just wanted to address the point raised by the committee chair. mr. holt: where in the bill he asks are there exemptions from environmental review? well, section 102 is where they are. right at the front of this bill. page 4, if he wanted to know the page number. under section 102 of the lead agency can determine whether the nepa law, the national environmental policy act, even applies to a particular project. the whole idea of the national environmental protection act is
there would be an independent review that involves public input, input from all affected interests. and input from somebody who speaks for the land and somebody who speaks for the trees. one of my colleagues a few moments ago said mining affects only a tiny fraction of the land. well, that is if you ignore everybody who's downstream and downwind. . section 102 allows deferring and relying on data from reviews that have been performed not under nepa standards. they say the majority says, well, state reviews should suffice. well, does anybody remember a state called montana that was controlled by copper interests? do you think that state's reviews of a copper mining
environmental impact would suffice? well, that's the kind of thing that would be permitted under this legislation. it would be weather to prepare a document, the determination of scope of any review, submission of any review or comments from the public. they could say no public comment s are permitted. i consider that a real abrogation of our responsibility and, yes, a real removal of environmental protection. i thank the gentleman. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend from new jersey. he talked about section 102. section 101 which is the basis of all this really talks about what the president did with his executive order. by improving performance of
federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects. we are simply duplicating what the president has already said is ok in other areas. with that, madam chairman, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of h.r. 4402, the national strategic and critical minerals production act. it's nice to hear on the floor that good is speaking for the trees in new mexico we just burned down 300,000 acres of those trees because of the voices come interesting washington saying don't cut a single one of them. let the fuel build up in the forests until they burn down. all this bill is saying is hold our government accountable to some standard of performance. we want our government service to do the same they would do in 10 years in maybe 30 months. that is not an unreasonable assumption for us in america who are looking for the jobs. new mexico used to be the home
to 11 rare earth mineral mines. those are the one that is create cell phone batteries, the miprals that create technological things. we now have out of new mexico and the rest of the west and we pushed them to china so they have the jobs and we no longer have them in this contry. we have people willing here to scream foul on every thing when we ask the government to do its job more efficiently. we did that in the 2005 energy policy act. an amendment placed in the resources committee actually improved the permitting process. it had categorical exclusions. i just had a chance to visit with the state director of b.l.m. this last week, he said that our processes are so much better today because of that bill. that's all we are trying to do in this bill here today. h.r. 4402 simply listens to the president. we are talking about from the other side of the aisle we should name it. why don't we rename it, we are listening to you, mr. president,
you asked on march 22 for our federal permitting and review processes must provide a transparent, consistent, and predictable path. the president is asking for it and this bill simply gives it. the reason we don't have jobs in this country is because we are sending them to other countries. companies cannot wait for 10, 12, 15 years. they can't invest in that permitting process to get to the point where the process is finished. you can't invest 10 to 12 years in the permitting process to be told at the end we are sorry, we are not going to do it. we could call this the let's reinvest in american green jobs. green jobs require aluminum, 100% of that is imported. green jobs require nickel, 100% of that is imported. green jobs require platinum, 91% of that is imported. our friends on the other side of the aisle speak from both sides of their mouth. we want green jobs but we don't
want to have any of the productive assets here. we want to improperty them from other countries. let's reinvest in america. i yield back my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey as much time as he may consume. could i first ask how much time is remaining? the chair: yes. the gentleman from massachusetts has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 15 minutes remaining. mr. markey: i yield -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. markey: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey as much time as he may consume. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to clarify further the point raised by the chairman that this does not eviscerate environmental protections. i talked about section 102 and the chairman came back and said, well, section 101 just refers to the presidential order that
allows certain infrastructure projects to move ahead with expedited environmental review. first of all it is overwhelm expedited environmental review. it's not removal of environmental review. and i was talking about specific critical construction projects. what this would do with -- would allow exemption essentially from environmental review for any of the materials that go in the construction project, including gravel and sand. all of that. would be exempt because the mining companies could negotiate a timetable for each step of the review process. the mining companies could enter into a negotiation for determining whether they would be public comment or whether partial previous reviews would suffice. furthermore, section 103 directs, directs the agency
overseeing this project to prioritize, to give highest priority to maximizing production of the mineral resource. in other words, that relegates any review, any challenge to the regulatory process to secondary, teshesary -- tertiary or nonexistent status. it says maximizing production has the highest priority. this is a giveaway to mining companies. this is not about providing strategic and critical minerals. the other side has talked at length about the importance of these minerals to our modern technology today for batteries and cars and magnets and all sorts of other things. they are right. we should be insuring a good supply of these things. but this bill does not do it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: before i yield to the gentleman, i yield 30 seconds. the gentleman from new jersey disparage sand and gravel. madam chairman, i would point out to you i think after the earthquakes of northern california when roads collapsed and earthquakes in southern california when roads collapsed, and when the bridge collapsed in minnesota i have to believe those people felt sand and gravel was a very critical mineral at that time. that's why this bill is broad in its definition of critical minerals. with that i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, a member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> i come to the floor today to express my support for h.r. 4402, the national strategic and critical minerals production act. mr. benishek: this bill expedites responsible mineral production in the united states by reducing federal red tape and speeding up the federal permitting process to create new mining jobs. my northern michigan district is
blessed with lots of minerals. many mining has been the foundation of northern michigan's economy. currently mining contributes over $4 billion to michigan's economy annually. and employs over 30,000 people. today new mining operations in northern michigan are being explored. the mines have the potential to create thousands of new jobs. in fact, just last week i visited one of these new mining sites, was able to see firsthand the work we are doing to responsibly utilize michigan's vast copper resources. regrettably the federal government and washington bureaucrats have been standing in the way of new mines across this country. through lawsuits and government inefficiency, the current process of acquiring permits for a new mining project can take more than a decade.
that's right. a decade. while our economy is struggling, we can't afford to wait 10 years while the federal government sits on its hands. we need to encourage responsible use of our mineral resources to create jobs and keep america competitive with the rest of the world. madam chair, i encourage all members to support this commonsense legislation, speed up this process, and create jobs. if we can get the federal government out of the way, i'm confident northern michigan can flourish once again. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield the gentleman from new jersey as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. chairman -- madam chair, i have used the phrase giveaway as have others today several times. the ranking member spoke about the wheel of giveaways, one day it's oil, another day it's timber. it's it's mining.
-- today it's mining. and there is a lot of concern about the special interests that are represented here by this. well, i offered an amendment to this bill to ensure that the companies involved, the mining companies, cannot continue to extract valuable minerals for free, minerals that belong to the american people, without accountability for their expenditures to obtain political influence. my amendment which unfortunately was not allowed by the rules committee would have simply required that mineral exploration and mining companies disclose their contributions for political influence over the previous five years in order to obtain new leases. perfectly legal and i would say perfectly reasonable. the supreme court decision in
citizens united ruled that corporations may spend freely in elections. and that, i believe, constituted a blow to popular democracy. it overturned a century old doctrine, going back to teddy roosevelt, restricting corporate money in campaigns. the flawed decision opened floodgates on corporate spending to influence maybe even to dominate our elections. because of that decision, american democracy has come to be defined by superp.a.c.s and -- super p.a.c.s and similar organizations. the amendment i offered would have helped to restore some sanity and transparency to this process by requiring that mining companies disclose their campaign contribution over the previous five years in order to receive new leases for public lands. as speaker boehner said on "meet
the press" a few years back, i think we ought -- i think what we ought to do is have full disclosure. full disclosure of all the money we raise and how it is spent. i think sunlight is the best disinfectent, said speaker boehner. i agree. we should be doing that in this case as well. promoting the development of minerals critical to core national priorities and genuinely susceptible to supply disruption like rare earth elements should be an area where democrats and republicans can work together. not one where special interests advance one partisan interest over another. unfortunately the majority's hurry to give yet another handout to the mining industry means that we are not having that debate here today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. the chair: the gentleman from
oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. walden: mr. chairman, thank you for the time. i stand here today in support of my friend and colleague, mark amodei's bill. i think it's important we you use america' resources responsibly to -- america's resources responsibly to create jobs. and not rely on foreign imports and driving or jobs offshore. this is especially important when it comes to our mineral resources. we heard the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, all that stuff. let me just talk to you about the eastern oregon miners. these are individual men and women. they are very blue collar. they are not part of the wealthy class you hear talked about here. they just have been trying to work with this federal government for over a decade to be able to use the mining claims that they have and the forest service has grouped together 49 mining plants' operation for analysis and approval back in 2001 and 2004. in 2005, the forest